User talk:Assafn

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Assafn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Animalparty-- (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Jean Baptiste Auguste Puton) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Jean Baptiste Auguste Puton, Assafn!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please add secondary sources about Puton. Cheers.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Taxa and taxon names[edit]

You need to understand some basic taxonomy, and in particular the difference between a taxon and a taxon name.

Taxa are groups of organisms, thought to form some kind of "unity" by a taxonomist. The nomenclature codes regulate the names of taxa, but not what the taxa should be. The Codes take no position on what taxa should exist, only on what their names should be once their circumscription has been determined.

Exactly the same group of organisms can be given different names because they have different ranks. In the PPG I system, the family Polypodiaceae is a name for the same group of fern species as the subfamily Polypodioideae in the system of Christenhusz and Chase (2014). Same taxon (in the sense of the same group of species), different name. The ICNafp says nothing about whether we should choose the rank of family or the rank of subfamily. All it says is what the name should be once we make the choice.
Different groups of organisms can have exactly the same name because they include the same type. In the PPG I system, the genus Blechnum has about 30 species, crucially including the species on which the genus was based (the "type species"), Blechnum occidentale. In the system of Christenhusz and Chase (2014), Blechnum is a much, much larger genus with about 250 species. It includes species that PPG I puts into about 13 other genera. But as it includes Blechnum occidentale, the ICNafp says the name of the genus must be Blechnum. Blechnum sensu PPG I and Blechnum sensu Christenhusz & Chase (2014) are very, very different taxa (groups of organisms), but they have the same taxon name.

All that a taxon name tells you is the rank of the taxon and that it includes the type. It does not tell you what organisms are included in the taxon other than those included in the type. The Codes do not regulate taxonomy, only names. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand the difference, what I was trying to say is that there are two "kind" for information in wikidata. A taxon (which you called texa) to define the group and a regulated data such authority and name ( which you called taxon name, but is actually much more). You explained why you are objecting wikidata in the concept of Taxon ranks information but didn't explained why you are against the regulated data (Taxon name). In my previews comments I explained a possible way how to solve the Taxon range issue. Assafn (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Taxa" is just the plural of "taxon".

I agreed that we could consider picking up the authority from Wikidata if Wikidata correctly represented all the cases like "L." and "(L.) R.Br." for plants and "Simon, 1874" and "(Simon, 1874)" for animals. Does it? If so, can you show me examples? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are mixing presentation with data. Wikidata hold only data it doesn't say how to present it. For example lets looks at lion (Panthera leo). Wikidata has the following data: taxon name (P225): Panthera leo; taxon author(P405): Carl Linnaeus; year of taxon name(P574): 1758; original combination (P1403): Felis leo.

English wiki should have a template with the following algorithm to create the taxon name:

Get last name of P405 = Linnaeus
Append comma = Linnaeus,
Append P574 = Linnaeus, 1758
If has P1403 add parentheses = (Linnaeus, 1758)
Append authority to P225 = Panthera leo (Linnaeus, 1758) Assafn (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not mixing presentation and data; my issue is how often Wikidata actually holds the correct data so that strings like "(L.) R.Br." can be constructed and whether the full data required can be represented with the properties that exist at present. Your example shows that it can be done for animals if the taxon author, date and wikidata:Property:P1403 are all present when they should be.

Can Wikidata store all the information needed to retrieve the authority for Lycopodium lagopus (Lycopodium lagopus (Q15322781))? If so, what is the algorithm? The correct authority in reliable sources is "(Laest. ex C.Hartm.) Zinserl. ex Kuzen." (The basionym is Lycopodium clavatum L. var. lagopus Laest. ex C.Hartm.; Kuzeneva published the raising of the variety to a species, attributing the name to Zinserling, so the elevation to a species and the new combination that results are attributed to "Zinserl. ex Kuzen.")

A very important point is that authorities need to be referenced (although sadly they aren't as often as they should be). We can't easily retrieve the reference from Wikidata, even if it's present, because its format has to be adjusted to match the consistent style in the article, as per WP:CITESTYLE. What would we gain by importing the authority from Wikidata and then having to look it up in a reliable source anyway to get a reference? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This could be a bit more complected since you need to dig the data from two levels but the algorithm is more or less the same as before. The first level for Lycopodium lagopus (Q15322781)) which is: ex taxon author (P697): Yuri Tsinzerling and taxon author (P405): Olga Kuzeneva. The second level is the basionym (P566) Lycopodium clavatum var. lagopus (Q38235115) which is: ex taxon author(P697): Lars Levi Læstadius and taxon author (P405): Carl Hartman. Algorithm should be like this:

if has P566

Take last name from P566->P697 = Læstadius
Take last name from P566->P405 = Hartman
format text for basionym = (Læstadius ex. Hartman)

Take last name from P697 = Tsinzerling
Take last name from P405 = Kuzeneva
format text for taxon = Tsinzerling ex. Kuzeneva
append taxon text to basionym text = (Læstadius ex. Hartman) Tsinzerling ex. Kuzeneva

You raised several concerns and it is impossible to answer everything in a single reply, but I just demonstrated that authority algorithm is possible, that the data in wikidata is correct and for references it is possible to use reference URL (P854) (It is currently missing from wikidata but can easily be added and maintained) Assafn (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need one more step for each author, i.e. looking up the botanical abbreviation. Then the reference has to be converted into the particular style used in the article. So except for the reference style, you have shown that it can be done, IF the data is in Wikidata. Very good, but I simply don't see the point. What exactly would we gain, for a plant particularly, when we can just look it up in IPNI or any of the other main taxonomic databases? Peter coxhead (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of wiki purposes is to share knowledge by using Wisdom of the crowd so in the "Spirit" of wiki a larger community mean better quality. i.e. The authors names and referenced will be maintained not only by English wiki users but with users from all over the world. I personally think that it doesn't make sense that every wiki recreated the same database locally instead of working together. Assafn (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't have any kind of database of taxon authors' names. The definitive database of taxon authors' name for plants is IPNI. Any other database is just a copy of this. So for plants, there's no point whatsoever in repeating it all in Wikidata. I can see a case for animals, but I would always want to check the reference given in Wikidata myself. A very important principle here, which not all wikis seem to respect, is embodied in WP:UGC, part of the policy set out at WP:RS. We cannot use Wikidata as a source of information, only as a guide to finding a source for that information. This it could certainly do, but Wikidata has, so far anyway, not taken referencing seriously. There's no requirement for information in Wikidata to be sourced. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]